mUltimate Chopin

Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 39

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

The easiest explanation for the missing  hairpin is an oversight by the copyist in [FC] or by the engraver of FE. The possibility of Chopin having removed this mark in one of these sources is less likely, according to us, although it cannot be ruled out, e.g. to suggest a gradual diminuendo from bar 37 to  in bar 41. The latter was most probably added by Chopin, hence the removal of  could be an element of a more comprehensive change to the dynamics of the final fragment of the introduction.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 39

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

f1 in A (→GE), EE, FEJ & FES

g1 in FE
..

g1 as the topmost note of the last chord must be a mistake – committed by the copyist in [FC] or by the engraver of FE1 – which is proven by the corrections, coming from Chopin, in both teaching copies. It was also deemed a mistake in EE, probably on the basis of analogy with bar 37. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , Annotations in FES , Annotations in FEJ

b. 41

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No marking in A (→GE)

in FE (→EE)

(), our variant suggestion
..

The  indication was almost certainly added by Chopin to [FC] or in the process of proofreading FE1, hence we include it in the main text. The brackets result from uncertainty as to the relationship of this indication with  in bar 43, as no other source features both. Chopin could have been aware of the absence of  (or even removed it) and added  instead. In this case, these indications should be considered separately, taking into account only one of them. On the other hand, he could have added  simply to specify the dynamics in this place, regardless of the other markings or their absence, which would allow us to take into consideration both indications. Out of these three possibilities –  only,  only, both – the variant solution we adopted includes the ones with the indication written in the principal source (A).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 41-42

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3 staccato dots on F semiquavers in A

4 dots in GE

No marks in FE (→EE)
..

The missing staccato dots over the semiquavers must be an oversight by the copyist or by the engraver of FE (→EE). The additional dot in GE is a mistake or a revision, based on comparison with previous similar figures. However, the omission of the last dot could have been intended by Chopin, since the next bar, unlike the previous places, does not include a repetition of F.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 42

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No indication in A, FE (→EE) & GE2

poco - - in GE1
..

Placing the word poco already in this bar is a mistake by the engraver of GE1, who inserted it guided by the division of the text into great staves, and not by the text itself – both in A and GE1 this word is at the beginning of a line, which, however, corresponds to bar 43 in A, but to bar 42 in GE. The described origin of the mistake is confirmed by a crotchet rest having been erroneously placed here on the top stave, also 'borrowed' from bar 43. The mistakes were corrected in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE